HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Lew’s Cayman Islands Fund...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:37 AM

 

Lew’s Cayman Islands Fund a Likely Issue at Confirmation Hearings

Source: NYTIMES

As recently as 2010, Jack Lew, President Obama‘s nominee to be the next secretary of the Treasury, had $56,000 invested in a CitiGroup venture capital fund based in the Cayman Islands’ notorious Ugland House, a building whose mailboxes are home to nearly 19,000 corporate entities, many of them tax shelters.

The investment has been in public documents for years and drew no attention when Mr. Lew was confirmed to be deputy secretary of state in 2009 and director of the White House Office of Management and Budget in 2010.

But the fund is coming to light as Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats are zeroing on taxes lost to off-shore entities, including hedge funds, as a way to stave off $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts set to begin March 1.

Aides in both parties said it was quite likely to come up during his confirmation hearing Wednesday. Senate Democrats are struggling to come up with a package of spending cuts and tax loophole closings that could stave off the automatic spending cuts — known as sequestration — for at least three months. Tax breaks for hedge fund managers and offshore tax shelters are a prime target.

Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/lews-cayman-islands-fund-a-likely-issue-at-confirmation-hearings/



"quite likely to come up during his confirmation hearing"? Well I should EFFING hope so.

I know it was widely speculated that Rmoney was hiding all his loot in the Caymans, but this guy has it right out there in our face.

We are so screwn.

23 replies, 3085 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lew’s Cayman Islands Fund a Likely Issue at Confirmation Hearings (Original post)
Leslie Valley Feb 2013 OP
OKNancy Feb 2013 #1
Bradical79 Feb 2013 #6
JoeBlowToo Feb 2013 #2
dotymed Feb 2013 #3
Leslie Valley Feb 2013 #5
OKNancy Feb 2013 #9
choie Feb 2013 #13
hughee99 Feb 2013 #20
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #4
dotymed Feb 2013 #7
Fuddnik Feb 2013 #8
Left Coast2020 Feb 2013 #15
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #16
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #11
KoKo Feb 2013 #17
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #10
OKNancy Feb 2013 #12
KoKo Feb 2013 #18
OKNancy Feb 2013 #19
KoKo Feb 2013 #21
OKNancy Feb 2013 #22
KoKo Feb 2013 #23
judesedit Feb 2013 #14

Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:47 AM

1. The Republicans would like to make it an issue

I read the rest of the article and there is no "there there"

1. the Senate knew about it
2. "Mr. Lew divested himself of the CitiGroup Venture Capital International Growth Partnership in 2010. When confirmed as budget director in 2010, he sold the investment at a loss, for $54,418."
3. “Jack Lew paid all of his taxes and reported all of the income, gains and losses from the investment on his tax returns,”
4. "Mr. Lew did not create, manage or operate the fund, officials said. Republican aides did not suggest any illegality or tax cheating with the disclosure. "

Republican Grassley is accusing Obama of hypocrisy which is ironic since the Republican didn't care at all when they confirmed Paulson.

All over $56,000.
---

Jack Lew is a good man, a very liberal Democrat and a good appointment.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:29 AM

6. so he didnt know about his money

Being invested in the Cayman's island fund at the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:52 AM

2. The amount involved was a pittance compared to the tens of millions hidden by Romney...

 

and others like him. And if he paid taxes, they are just going on the fact that most people won't listen any further than "Cayman Islands."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:19 AM

3. Leslie, are you as surprised by the comments

to your post as I am? DU used to be very different.
Now "since they do it, it is fine for us to do it" is an often used meme around here. It doesn't matter if it is immoral or illegal..it is "party first."
Sad...
Attack

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:24 AM

5. So far. But I expect better when people dig out.

 

N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:12 AM

9. I've been here since 2001, and I know what DU was like and is like

and some people are just really tired of nit-picking these appointees.
If he spent two years out of a career in banking, it doesn't make him evil or unprincipled.
If you read about his career and his accomplishments, he is a damn fine choice.

I don't see any illegal actions here, in fact the Republicans don't either. Immoral - no way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:51 AM

13. dotymed,

It truly is sad - it's "party first" and "President Obama first"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:44 AM

20. There have always been people here whose "core principles" require asking

"Does this help or hurt the Democrats?" Thankfully, IMHO, this is not the vast majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:22 AM

4. $56,000 is chump change for people in those circles.

Silly that anyone would compare it to Romney's vast fortune.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:32 AM

7. I agree with the amount comparison

but principals need to mean something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:04 AM

8. We've got our own little Latte Party.

There's no such thing as principals. But, hey. Lew is repl,acing a guy who couldn't file his taxes. But he could protect banks, banksters, and Wall Street.

It's the job description.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:15 PM

15. It would not have been an issue if Krugman was nominated.

Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Left Coast2020 (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 07:39 AM

16. Krugman has said, time and again, he would not be suitable for the job

People really need to find someone else to turn to for financial administration jobs, rather than a person who is adamant he does want the jobs, and would not do them well, because he's not an administrator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:45 AM

11. If an investment is amoral, the amount or how much others invested is not really pertinent.

In addition, Lew's claimed net worth is just Net worth: $748,000 - $1.7 million- many people I know own homes worth that much, and 56K is not 'chump change' to folks with that sort of net worth. He's not very rich, on paper at least. That does not mean that his choices are therefore ethical or proper for the job.
'Did you invest in crack cocaine?'
'Why yes, but not that much and Mitt invested much more'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:01 AM

17. Well...if he had Romney's wealth he'd probably have more to put

in the Caymans.

It's the "temptation to shield money from taxes" that's the point of it, that's the question.

Is this the person for the job....if he wishes to avoid taxes that most of the rest of us who do pay taxes don't do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:19 AM

10. Time to fully tax all foreign investments

do the the same thing the US did with Swiss accounts but no amnesty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:51 AM

12. Why the left insists on doing the Republicans work.. this guy is the most liberal of Obama's

appointments.

I would like for naysayers and those interested to read these two articles.

This guy is a hardass on saving Social Security and Medicare from cuts.

http://www.politicususa.com/jack-lew-nomination-warning-shot-republicans.html


http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/10/the_reason_republicans_don_t_like_jack_lew.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:07 AM

18. He should be questioned about it, though. It does show a part of

his character. If he sought to hide part of his money in the Cayman's what else might be there?

I don't care about Lew one way or the other, but he should be asked about it. Geithner owed back taxes and got a pass. You think the rest of us could avoid taxes for years and not have our character questioned along with the IRS coming after us? Geitner's claim was that he overlooked it because he was too busy, if I recall his statement correctly. And, that was accepted. How did he "overlook" the letters from the IRS? I don't think you or I could have done that.

Anyway...better to know in case something comes up later with Lew where he may be tempted in some circumstance to "shield something" from public view or accountability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #18)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:29 AM

19. you didn't read the OP article or the two I posted

The accounts were never hidden, they were openly reported in all three confirmation hearings. ( It was an employee benefit)
Not only that, but he paid taxes on the account and he no longer holds the account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #19)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:59 AM

21. This is what I read...from Reuter's via Huff Post....

The NYT's article seemed to be incomplete and said Lew lost all his investment in the Citigroup Venture in the Caymens. This article said he lost $1,582 when he divested, not the entire $56,000 or so. Also Grassley had other questions not mentioned in NYT article.

Why is Bernie Sanders voting against Lew? That was at the end of this article by Reuters that I didn't snip here.

As I said, I don't care about Lew, one way or the other, but there are some additional issues with his taking the huge Bonus from Citi-Bank when it was bailed out by taxpayers. It's just a character issue...but then who could Obama nominate that wouldn't be tainted with character issues given the revolving door in DC.

This was the article I based my criticism on. BTW the Repugs opposing are worse than anything Lew could have done...but, that's the way they are...obstructionists for no reason than that it's what they do which is their own lack of character flaw.

----------------


CITIGROUP AND THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

At the hearing, Republicans plan to zero in on Lew's short stint at Citigroup. Lew, who has publicly said that he has scant expertise in financial markets, spent two years at the bank during Wall Street's meltdown, earning a combined $2.65 million in 2007 and 2008, according to a transcript of his confirmation hearing in 2009 for a State Department post.

Hired with a recommendation from then-Citi executive and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Lew became chief operating officer of Citigroup's global wealth management division in July 2006. He later became COO for Citi Alternative Investments, a largely administrative role that was apart from investment decisions that hurt the bank.

Republican Senator Charles Grassley said he will ask Lew about a $940,000 bonus he was given just before the bank received a taxpayer-funded bailout. The bonus came as Lew was getting ready to serve as a State Department deputy for the Obama administration.

"The Treasury secretary can't owe anyone on Wall Street any favors," Grassley, a member of the Finance Committee, said in an emailed statement. "He has to be independent from special interests and put taxpayers first."


Lew's record at Citigroup came up during his confirmation hearing for the State Department position, but it failed to prove a stumbling block.

"This is not his first rodeo," said Jared Bernstein, a former adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who is now with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It just doesn't seem to me that there's a smoking gun there."

Republicans also want to ask Lew about a $56,000 investment he once had in a Citigroup venture capital fund registered in the Cayman Islands. Lew lost $1,582 when he had to divest his position in the fund to serve as Obama's budget chief.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/jack-lew-senate-hearing-citi-budget_n_2656440.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-barack-obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:11 PM

22. Love the bolded parts with quotes from Republican Grassley

Point proven. Nothing about how he fought for Social Security and Medicare... or his long work for liberal causes.

I'm done. He will be confirmed.

( btw Robert Reich " Jack Lew would make excellent Treasury Secretary. Knows politics, understands budget, smart on economy, not under thumb of Wall Street." And on Facebook: "apart from a short stint at Citibank in 2008 (another of Bob Rubin's boys), he's not tainted by Wall Street's myopic worldview." )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #22)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:22 PM

23. Let's hope that Robert Reich is correct..."he's not tainted by Wall Streets

myopic worldview."

I respect Bob Reich and Jared Bernstein who's quoted in the snip in the Reuter's article I quoted you above.

I hope that he will be what is hoped for by his supporters. As I said, I doubt we would get anyone better given the "revolving door." Still...it's important to question him...rather than get caught up in the Repug obstructionists nonsense. It's important we know anything which could be a sign of something coming up later with him...to try to keep him honest.. (if there is such a thing)

I assume he will be confirmed, also.

peace......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:52 PM

14. It should be an issue. He's a tax dodger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread